The House failed to pass a bill Tuesday that would have required all aircraft near busy airports to carry key locator systems designed to prevent midair collisions. The vote fell short of the two-thirds threshold needed under fast-track rules, with 264 members voting in favor and 133 voting against.

The bill, known as the ROTOR Act, had already cleared the Senate. It was a direct response to the collision between an airliner and an Army helicopter on the evening of Jan. 29, 2025, near Reagan Airport, which killed 67 people when both aircraft plummeted into the icy Potomac River.

Families of the victims watched from the House gallery as the vote failed.

A Technology That Existed and Wasn't Required

According to Military.com, the National Transportation Safety Board has recommended ADS-B locator systems since 2008. That is not a typo. Eighteen years of federal safety recommendations, and the technology still isn't mandatory in the aircraft that need it most.

The NTSB's own investigation into the Potomac crash showed that ADS-B In technology would have provided significantly more warning to the pilots and would have allowed them to avoid the collision entirely. The system gives pilots an audible warning with specific details when a collision risk is detected. One of the key researchers who helped develop these systems noted that a plane's dashboard shouldn't have to be overhauled just to add a new display.

The cost argument doesn't hold up well under scrutiny either. NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy testified before Congress that American Airlines equipped more than 300 Airbus A321s with the technology for $50,000 apiece. A portable receiver that works with an iPad costs about $400. We are not talking about an Apollo-era engineering challenge. We are talking about a known solution that bureaucratic inertia has kept off cockpit screens for nearly two decades.

What Failed and Why

The ROTOR Act would have required all aircraft operating near busy airports to carry the same locator equipment, eliminating the patchwork of rules that allowed a military helicopter without ADS-B In to fly in congested airspace alongside a commercial airliner. Senate leaders behind the bill, including Sen. Ted Cruz, argued it would require all aircraft to play by the same rules.

Cruz was unequivocal after the vote:

"We will succeed, and ROTOR Act will become the law of the land."

He added that the families and the flying public "deserve nothing less."

A competing and more comprehensive House bill was introduced just last week. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves said that the bill could be marked up in committee as soon as next week. But the House version takes a fundamentally different approach. Rather than mandating ADS-B In directly, it would require the FAA to investigate what technology might be best as part of a lengthy rulemaking process before requiring any solution.

Tim Lilley, whose son Sam was the first officer on the airliner, had no patience for that distinction:

"They've had 18 years to get it right. He's talking about getting it right and he's not even close on the collision avoidance piece."

Doug Lane, who lost his wife and 16-year-old figure-skating son in the crash, was more pointed. He called the House bill's approach to ADS-B In "a clear effort to just punt" the technology "into a place where it can just go and die," adding that it "was not a good-faith effort to come up with a better way to do collision avoidance technology."

Studies Instead of Solutions

This is where the story becomes infuriating in the most familiar way. The NTSB identified the problem. It recommended a fix. The technology exists, is affordable, and has already been deployed by at least one major airline on its own initiative. And the legislative response from the House is to commission more studies.

The House bill was designed to address all 50 NTSB recommendations from the investigation, which sounds comprehensive until you realize that the single most critical recommendation, the one that would have directly prevented the collision, got routed into a rulemaking process with no fixed deadline. Anyone who has watched the FAA conduct rulemaking knows what that means. Years of comment periods, industry lobbying, and bureaucratic delay while the same vulnerability sits open.

NTSB Chairwoman Homendy has said the House bill falls short of accomplishing what needs to be done on the collision avoidance front. Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, said the ROTOR Act "was the clearest and most direct way to avoid midair collisions."

Rep. Nick Langworthy, a New York Republican who chairs an aviation safety caucus and voted for the bill, said he was puzzled by the Pentagon's last-minute shift on the legislation. He also noted that many members were absent due to the weather, which may have affected the two-thirds threshold. Langworthy urged the families not to lose hope:

"But I don't think they should be completely dejected. I do think there are avenues to bring it back."

The Pattern That Should Alarm Everyone

The Potomac River crash killed 67 people, including 26 members of the figure skating community and the parents of Olympic figure skater Maxim Naumov. These were not abstractions. They were passengers on Flight 5342 who boarded a plane trusting that the federal government had done its job.

It hadn't. And after the deadliest U.S. aviation disaster in years, the House still couldn't muster the votes for the straightforward fix.

House Speaker Mike Johnson told the Associated Press that the Senate and House will work together to get an aviation safety bill done. "We're committed to it," he said. That commitment now has to mean something more than a competing bill that replaces mandates with studies.

The broader conservative instinct here is sound: get the policy right, don't rush bad legislation, and be skeptical of one-size-fits-all mandates. But this is not a case where the technology is unproven or the cost is prohibitive. ADS-B In works. The NTSB has said so repeatedly since 2008. The crash investigation confirmed it would have prevented the collision. At some point, "further study" stops being prudent and starts being the kind of regulatory capture that conservatives are supposed to oppose.